Tag Archives: Gun control

Gun Control Success: CA teacher murdered in front of students by knife.

Standard
Gun Control Success: CA teacher murdered in front of students by knife.

53 year old teacher Kellye Taylor was murdered in front of her students during recess by the father of her grandchildren, Steven Brown.

Taylor was overpowered by the younger man and fatally stabbed in the neck.

Is this what successful gun control looks like?

What I see is that an older woman who could not overpower her attacker was murdered in front of her students and could not have carried a firearm to defend herself.  The equalizer that the 2nd Amendment is supposed to guarantee would have given her a fighting chance yet was denied her.

This is the real effect that gun control has.  It disarms the law abiding and leaves vulnerable the small, the old, and the weak.  Now those who are bigger, younger and stronger can rape rob and murder without real fear of repercussions during their crime.  Sure the cops can come later and make the chalk lines and arrest the guilty for what little good it does the victim.

I would wager that the vast majority of rape victims would prefer that the only bodily fluid on them from their would be rapist was the blood splatter from where they shot the rapist dead.

How does gun control view that outcome?

alley

 

Are the gun control zealots now going to focus on cutlery control? Police recovered the “sharp instrument” used in the attack.  A sharp instrument could be almost anything from a box cutter to an ice pick.  These tools have valid and legal uses but can be used improperly as well.  Of course, that is true with firearms as well yet the gun controllers don’t really care about that.

Now, gun controllers might say, “if gun control wasn’t as tough in California, Brown might have shot Taylor”.

So?  It’s not like Taylor would have ended up any more dead.  Yet, perhaps she might have survived if she had been allowed to have the tools which would have facilitated her defense.

Alas, she was denied that right and as such the war on women in California continues.

Advertisements

“If you don’t win, cheat”; that’s the Chicago way

Standard
“If you don’t win, cheat”; that’s the Chicago way

From the city that gave us Barack Obama, Al Capone and the term “Chicago Politics” now gives us a mash up of all three in order to fight against the recent ruling recognizing Chicagoan’s right to keep and bear arms.

The Chicago City council has taken it upon themselves to try and infringe and limit the newly recognized right within their city by any means necessary.  By using coercion and threats the thugs of the City Council are forcing the owners of businesses that serve alcohol to place a sign in their window banning guns on the premises.

That doesn’t mean just bars, anyplace that serves alcohol will be forced to acquiesce to the whims of the City Council.  This includes restaurants, hotels, bars, clubs, sporting venues, carnivals and festivals etc. Though liquor and grocery stores are exempt.

The stance on this matter is reminiscent of a scene in the Godfather when Michael speaks of the time his father and Luca Brazzi give the bandleader a choice

The city council’s Consigliere in this case is Donal Quinlan who said:

“What we’re essentially doing is making it mandatory for establishments to exercise that right to say, ‘No guns here’. We can’t regulate guns, but we can revoke their liquor license if they don’t exercise that right.

There are so many things wrong with that statement it boggles the mind. If you are making it mandatory to do something you are not allowing people to exercise that right, you are actually doing the opposite.  

I have the right to vote for a candidate, but if you force me to vote for them if i don’t want to that doesn’t mean I’m exercising my right, it means I am being crushed under a tyrannical heel.  This is how third world dictatorships operate.

And the fact that the Chicago City Council has to threaten people in order to get their way because the courts ruled against them is both disgusting and unethical.  Though I guess that is business as usual in Chicago. 

Somehow, the City Council of Chicago, the murder capital of America with over 1200 murders and countless shootings over the past 30 months , believes what; that by harassing business owners and infringing upon a persons right to protect themselves these shootings will stop?

Then again, gun control isn’t about stopping crime…it’s about control…and Chicago and the politicians it produces are all about control, freedom and choice be damned.

How’s Obamacare working for everyone?  I guess Obama learned that trick back in Chi-town.

 

A Look at Obama “Under the Radar”

Standard
A Look at Obama “Under the Radar”

Back in 2011, President Obama promised Sarah Brady that he was working on gun control being quoted as saying to her, “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

So over the past 2 years, what has “under the radar” entailed?  While the President continues to fail infringing on gun rights by championing legislation, he succeeds by sneaking through continuous executive orders and other directives to federal agencies in order to push forward his gun control agenda.

Through executive order the President has done the following:

  • Bans the re-importation of over 600,000 historical M1 Garands to the US
  • Makes it more difficult for gun trusts to purchase firearms
  • Harassment of gun shops on the southern border
  • Set up impediments for the return of property wrongly seized by the government
  • Encourage, through Obamacare, for doctors to ostracize gun owners
  • Push for industry bankrupting false science initiatives such as micro stamping

With the signing of the UN Arms Trade Treaty, the Obama administration has set up the groundwork for the following:

  • Requiring a national registration to meet treaty requirements

“The most recent draft treaty includes export/import controls that would require officials in an importing country to collect information on the ‘end user’ of a firearm, keep the information for 20 years, and provide the information to the country from which the gun was exported. In other words, if you bought a Beretta shotgun, you would be an ‘end user’ and the U.S. government would have to keep a record of you and notify the Italian government about your purchase. That is gun registration. If the U.S. refuses to implement this data collection on law-abiding American gun owners, other nations might be required to ban the export of firearms to the U.S.”

Obama has spent the past 5 years staffing his administration and the courts with anti gun zealots.

  • Attorney General Eric Holder:  “We have to brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way. What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that’s not cool, that it’s not acceptable, it’s not hip to carry a gun anymore.”
  • Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor: Wrote a legal theses at Princeton, “Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture” wherein the text she argues that firearms have been illegal for individuals to own since the passing of the Bill of Rights.
  • Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan: While working for the Clinton Administration drafted the executive order restricting the importation of semiautomatic rifles.

Then there is the absence of action on the Obama administration because sometimes no move is a strike against the 2nd Amendment.

  • The administration continues to block the selling of used military brass to the public, driving up prices for ammunition while fuelling shortages
  • Obama uses veto threats to stop nationwide reciprocation of concealed carry permits

These are what under the radar maneuvers look like in the Obama administration.  While overt Manchin-Toomey type infringements are defeated in Congress thanks to the will of the people, these back door dealings that don’t get the same press and are harder to stop, continue.  Obama is winning the shadow war on the 2nd Amendment because no one else is playing.  He will continue to appoint rabid gun control zealots and he will continue to scrawl out executive orders that only infringe rights but makes no one safer.

The promise President Obama has made to Sarah Brady has been playing out his entire term and unless the public really starts looking under the radar they may find the 2nd Amendment completely undermined.

The Right to Bear Arms: From Flintlocks to Lightsabers, what will the government control?

Standard
The Right to Bear Arms: From Flintlocks to Lightsabers, what will the government control?

A common fallacy that the gun control crowd likes to put forth is that the 2nd Amendment limits the weapons available to the people of today to those available in the 1700’s.   Basically muskets, flintlock pistols and swords.

While that makes as much sense as the limiting of the First amendment to single page press machines and speaking at town squares (thus excluding television, phones, internet etc), with the advance of technology I can only imagine what the controllers will say when I want to keep and bear my lightsaber.

Lightsaber?!?!?!

Yes, lightsaber.

A team of Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) physicists have discovered a molecule that behaves exactly like the weapon made famous by Luke Skywalker.

You can read the story about how they inadvertently discovered the “lightsaber” molecule here.

With the gun controllers getting their panties in bunch over a sporting rifle being black or having a pistol grip compared to a hunting rifle, I can envision the type of meltdown they would have with a sword that can cut through steel walls.

And yes, the lightsaber is not a gun, but then again gun control isn’t about guns, it’s about control.  With the continual advancement of technology the lightsaber could be a popular and prevalent choice of arm for people to bear.

That’s where I am going with this.

Technology evolves.  And the Constitution enumerated our rights based on the right itself, not on the limitation of the technology of the time.

That is why a new type of media doesn’t invalidate the First amendment, nor does a new religion.  That is also why new materials or new designs do not invalidate the Second Amendment.  We have rights and they are not limited to the times.  They advance as the technology advances.

So one day, maybe near or maybe far in the future, I will have the same right to keep and bear my trusty blaster and lightsaber, that our forefathers had with their flintlocks and swords.

The right of the people to keep and bear lightsabers (or blasters) shall not be infringed.

Gun Control working to facilitate hate crimes in New York City

Standard
Gun Control working to facilitate hate crimes in New York City

As hate crime mob beatings in New York City continue to escalate in ferocity as well as in frequency, gun control appears to be working as it was intended.  In that, the people most prone to be attacked aren’t having to sink to the level of shooting their attackers and can take the moral highroad of being beaten, sometimes to death.

Of course I am being facetious with the previous sentence in response to this online meme the Brady Campaign came out with a while back

bradyrape

But even though the Brady Campaign tries to backpedal from the above ad that was featured on their facebook page, and other gun control groups distance themselves from the sentiment the fact is that gun control’s end result is exploiting the weak and the few to the whims of the strong and the many.

Just like a 100lb woman will find it difficult to fight off three 200+lb rapists so too will a 31 yr old Columbia University Professor have difficulty fighting off 20 hooligans on bikes.

That story happened earlier this week as Prof. Prabjot Singh, a sikh, was singled out and attacked because the gang of hoodlums took him for a muslim (as if that somehow made it right).  Singh, who was unarmed like everyone except the rich and connected in New York City, was left to try and fight off his attackers.  The attackers who outnumbered him TWENTY to ONE.

Fortunately for Singh, eventually passerby’s intervened and stopped the attack but not until Singh had gotten most of his teeth knocked out and received a fractured jaw.  Chalk another victim up to gun control.

Then you have the hate crime onslaught against homosexuals in New York City.  Anti-gay hate crimes are set to DOUBLE this year.  Just last month a couple was hospitalized by the beating they received by a groups of attackers as they were walking hand in hand in Chelsea.

Then you have the story of 32-year-old Mark Carson, a gay man who was walking on W. Eighth Street near Sixth Avenue with his boyfriend.  He was shot in the face and killed at point-blank range.

But…i mean…gun control is supposed to stop people from having guns.  Well, only the law abiding I guess.  And to all the anti-gun people who want to point out that having a gun wouldn’t have saved Mr. Carson’s life, before firing his .38 revolver, 33-year-old Elliot Morales taunted the man, calling him a “queer” and a “faggot”.

If he had enough time to taunt the person he murdered, then Mr. Carson (or his partner) would have had enough time to at least draw their weapon and fight.

But that’s the rub.  Gun Controllers don’t want you to fight back.  They just want you to sit there and die.  Because to them, guns can never be the answer and just because they have no success stopping criminals from having guns doesn’t mean they will cease stopping the law abiding from defending themselves.

To gun controllers, guns are not the answer because guns can never be the answer or else their entire argument implodes on itself.

The 2nd Amendment protects against tyranny.  Not only the tyranny of a government, but the tyranny of the mob.  The tyranny brought on by rapists, racists, gay-bashers, haters and bullies of the world.

These tyrants are only stopped when they are STOPPED.  Either at the end of a barrel or with some customized ventilation.

Starbucks CEO Shultz wants his overpriced macchiato and drink it too regarding guns

Standard
Starbucks CEO Shultz wants his overpriced macchiato and drink it too regarding guns

I never said Starbucks had to be pro-gun.

I completely accepted and respected their not taking a position in the gun/no-gun conversation with regards to their store.

Respecting state law in regards to whether firearms were allowed in their stores seemed perfectly reasonable and while I didn’t count them among business that support the 2nd Amendment outright I still appreciated the logical reason and lack of hostility they showed to gun owners.

CEO Howard Shultz basically crapped all over that.

I don’t want to mischaracterize Starbucks stance, they will not kick you out if you are carrying a firearm.

They just want you to know that you are not welcome in their store and they strongly advise you not to bring your firearm with you.

Apparently Shultz does not care for the numerous “Starbucks Appreciation Days” that 2nd Amendment supporters have been fostering.

That’s fine.  I for one WILL honor their request.  I mean, should a black man go to a Klan owned business that will serve them just because that business is legally forced too?  If Howard Shultz doesn’t want my patronage and is now openly hostile to me, then I will take my money to the other local cafe’s in Pittsburgh (and everywhere I travel) that don’t have a problem whatsoever with my 2nd Amendment rights.

Plus…they have better coffee that than overpriced swill at Starbucks.  Yeah..I know…easy to say now but seriously, there are better coffeehouses out there without the sneering condescension from their CEO’s.

Apparently many have agreed with me because the stock for Starbucks has plummeted so far today.

Starbucks Corporation

NASDAQ: SBUX – Sep 18 10:46am ET

Startodaychart

This, after a steady and consistent rise ever since the first Starbucks Appreciation Day started in California back in 2009.

Starbucks Corporation

NASDAQ: SBUX – Sep 18 10:32am ET

chart

I’ve no doubt that Startbucks would have continued on unencumbered with the patronage of gun owners if Shultz had just kept his trap shut but we gun owners tend to be a funny bunch.  We have this crazy notion that we want to spend our money on businesses that appreciate and respect us.

Now that Starbucks has made the official stance that it does not do either, I and many other gun owners will simply go elsewhere.

Ironically, I imagine that the gun control crowd that will champion Shultz’s words will not start to flock to Starbucks to show THEIR appreciation.  If the pictures of gun control rallies vs gun rights rallies is any indication.

I don’t know who got into Shultz’s ear about this but they probably need to be fired.  And no, not because of the gun issue.  Because this is just TERRIBLE business.  You decided to openly vent hostility towards the source of your company’s recent financial boom, yet don’t actually change your policy to fully satisfy the opposition who pushed for it in the first place.

A series of half measures and wishy-washiness pleases no one.  But, boneheaded as it is, if Starbucks wants me and the millions of other gun owners to take our money elsewhere in THIS economy…that is their prerogative.

Blood runs on US Military Bases Because Bill Clinton Made It So

Standard
Blood runs on US Military Bases Because Bill Clinton Made It So

(Update/Edit at the bottom)

I get sick and tired of gun controllers who give a smirk when they stick their nose in the air and pontificate about how they think “more guns less crime” is “proven wrong” when a shooting occurs on a military installation.

The latest two examples, Ft. Hood and the DC Naval Yard, found these snooty civilian deep-thinkers practically clucking about the amount of guns located on a military installation not being enough to stop a mass shooter.

I get upset not because they are right, but because they are so sickeningly wrong and their asinine assumptions are easily gobbled up by the uneducated.

You see, thanks to President Bill Clinton, in 1993 one of Clinton’s first moves against the 2nd Amendment was to disarm military personnel while on base.  Setting aside the irony that a draft dodger was issuing commands to the military, this action heralded the truth that gun controllers wanted a nation disarmed.

Think about it, while they have backtracked immensely over the past 2 decades, (with gun controllers now harping on “training”), back then they couldn’t even fathom trusting their OWN MILITARY with any firearms while off duty.

Unfortunately, while the ban on sporting rifles was allowed to sunset after 10 years, the stripping of constitutional rights of America’s fighting men and women has been left in place.  The result?  Over two dozen personnel left unable to defend themselves and thus murdered by mass shooters, thanks to Bill Clinton.

So yes, the people who most likely have the most amount of training in the country are denied the ability to carry a personal firearm while on military installations and as is true with any “Gun Free” Zone, are just easy pickings for any maniac who wants to go on jihad or a secular rampage.

This bit of logic does nothing to stymie the ghouls who will try and use this disarmament fueled tragedy to further their gun control agenda.

While Obama laments “yet another mass shooting” (as if they are common everywhere and not just criminal entitlement zones) his spokesmen Jay Carney spouts off the usual company line BS:

The president supports, as do an overwhelming majority of Americans, common sense measures to reduce gun violence

Oh does he?  I wonder.  Because I’ll bet dollars to donuts that the majority of Americans believe that letting our military be armed on their OWN installations is some of that common sense Carney refers too.  Yet I doubt his boss would agree.

Then you have the West Coast Crone, Dianne Feinstein, who seems to slink out of her crypt whenever their is a gun death to spew here ghoulish rhetoric about the “litany of massacres” (really…a litany of massacres?):

Congress must stop shirking its responsibility and resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence in this country.  We must do more to stop this endless loss of life

When it comes to congress and governance in general, less is more.  Less gun restrictions and the elimination of “gun free” zones would see the bottom fall out of anyone’s plans who thought to go on a shooting spree.

But I doubt that Feinstein wants a debate like that.  I mean, we’ve been having the debate for years and liberty is winning.  Yet to her  and other gun controllers, the only debate is whether to move quickly or slowly in disarming the American people.

I hope it doesn’t take any more tragedy for those in Washington to extract their heads from their fourth point of contact and right the Clinton era wrong.  Allow the men and women of our military to defend themselves at home the way they defend us abroad…with a gun.

UPDATE/EDIT: While not discounting the Clinton’s administrations outright attack on the 2nd Amendment, it appears that the banning of firearms was merely RENEWED by President Clinton but initiated in 1992 by the first President Bush.

Just goes to show that infringing on constitutional rights knows no party.  Gun control causes enough blood to find its way onto many hands.